dbcve.org
Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2026-64191

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Developing Published 2026-07-20
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 5.10.260 / 5.15.211 or later.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
Zero-click 4 weeks old

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: i2c: stub: Reject I2C block transfers with invalid length The I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA case in stub_xfer() uses data->block[0] as the transfer length. The existing check only clamps it to avoid overrunning the chip->words[256] register array, but does not validate it against I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX (32), which is the limit of the union i2c_smbus_data.block buffer (34 bytes total). The driver is a development/test tool (CONFIG_I2C_STUB=m, not built by default) that must be loaded with a chip_addr= parameter. A local user with access to /dev/i2c-* can issue an I2C_SMBUS ioctl with I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA and data->block[0] > 32, causing stub_xfer() to read or write past the end of the union i2c_smbus_data.block buffer: BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in stub_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c:223) Read of size 1 at addr ffff88800abcfd92 by task exploit/81 Call Trace: <TASK> stub_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c:223) __i2c_smbus_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c:593) i2c_smbus_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c:536) i2cdev_ioctl_smbus (drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c:391) i2cdev_ioctl (drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c:478) __x64_sys_ioctl (fs/ioctl.c:583) do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94) entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130) </TASK> The bug exists because i2c-stub implements .smbus_xfer directly, bypassing the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX validation in i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(). The I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA case in the same function correctly validates against I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX, but the I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA case does not. Fix by rejecting transfers with data->block[0] == 0 or data->block[0] > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX with -EINVAL, consistent with both the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA case in the same function and the I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA validation in i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated().

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · low confidence
Developing — this CVE was published recently and its authoritative NVD entry is still being established, so we're holding a technical summary until the source data settles rather than publish something unreliable. Re-checking after 2026-08-11.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Linux KernelOperating system
Affected:>= 2.6.33, < 5.10.260>= 5.11, < 5.15.211>= 5.16, < 6.1.177>= 6.2, < 6.6.144>= 6.7, < 6.12.95>= 6.13, < 6.18.37>= 6.19, < 7.0.14= 7.1

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 5.10.260 / 5.15.211 / 6.1.177 or later
Fixed in 5.10.2605.15.2116.1.177
We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $3,200. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-64191 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-64191 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data